44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2022 02:00PM
- Nov/30/22 3:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 3, during question period, after the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South asked a question, the Minister of National Revenue said, “Mr. Speaker, I can well understand, during this Mental Health Week, how warped the thinking is on the other side of the House and that they do not understand what we mean.”
In response to such a comment making a parallel between mental health problems and the argument of an opposition member, the Speaker rose and said, “Perhaps it would be appropriate for the minister to phrase her words differently. Maybe she could apologize for that last statement. It was a little inflammatory.” Reclaiming the floor, the minister said, “I apologize, Mr. Speaker.”
My colleagues can find all these excerpts in the revised Hansard, volume 151, No. 063.
Unfortunately, that is not where this sad story ends, because on November 16, on local radio in the Gaspé, CIEU-FM, the Minister of National Revenue came back to her statement and, believe it or not, doubled down on it. She said, “I worked in mental health for 25 years and I saw all sorts of things, but I must say that I have rarely seen what is happening across the way when I look at my colleagues, and I am really concerned”.
To be polite, to say the least, the—
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 3:47:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the story does not end there. It goes on.
On November 16, on local radio in her riding of Gaspé, CIEU-FM, the Minister of National Revenue came back to her statement and even, believe it or not, doubled down on it. She said, and I quote, “I worked in mental health for 25 years and I saw all sorts of things, but I must say that I have rarely seen what is happening across the way when I look at my colleagues, and I am really concerned”. To put it politely, the apology that the minister gave here in the House in May was not very sincere, to say the least.
We may have different opinions on a subject. We can, and I would even venture to say that we should, have different opinions. We can use evidence-based arguments to attack the opposing views of the other side. However, we should never resort to insults.
There are a thousand acceptable ways to attack an opponent without resorting to unacceptable means. Unfortunately, the Minister of National Revenue used insults as a weapon and as an argument, not once but twice. In my opinion that is unworthy of the mandate that citizens gave us with trust and respect.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to participate in this debate, especially after my colleague's eloquent speech. There was one line that will stay with me for a long time.
He said that they do not want to see the first nations stakeholders as real, true partners. I love that line.
We are here today for the final stage of the bill that will establish the national council for reconciliation. I am always filled with pride and emotion when I rise to speak on an issue that affects first nations. I have the great honour and privilege of being the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent thanks to the support and assistance of the people of this riding. I represent the people of Wendake, an indigenous community in the Quebec City area that is well known and well established. We know that the Wendat have been here since the dawn of time, but they are more permanently settled in the northern part of Quebec City. They have been there for more than 300 years. As a result, ours is a fruitful, extraordinary, exemplary and, I would say, very inspiring relationship for all Canadians and all first nations. I will have the opportunity to come back to this later.
Obviously, we agree that this national council for reconciliation needs to be created. We believe that it is a step forward in order to improve the way indigenous and non-indigenous people work, grow and live together.
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work done by my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I am glad I got that right. If there is one thing I do not like about my job at the federal level, it is the interminable riding names. I will never run for Speaker of the House, because I will never be able to remember even two names. The current Chair occupants can rest assured that they do not have a potential opponent in me.
I think that my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River did an excellent job of properly examining this bill. In the beginning, he spoke out about the shortcomings in the original version. It is important to point out that it took a long time for this bill to be introduced, debated and passed in the House of Commons. In fact, the government first talked about it back in December 2017. We know that there was an election, and then another one. We know that Parliament was prorogued because the Prime Minister did not want us to get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal, so the government kept putting the bill off. Now here we are five years after the first draft. It has taken way too long to get here.
My colleague also mentioned problems related to transparency and independence when it comes to the appointment of members of this national council. We are also wondering about the soundness of the results. How can we determine whether this council is achieving real, concrete, relevant and successful results when we believe there were shortcomings at that point?
It is the same thing when it comes to accountability. The definition was far too vague, in our opinion. We wanted this council to report directly not to the minister responsible for indigenous-government relations, but to the Prime Minister himself. In fact, it was one of the recommendations of the 2015 report.
My colleague led the clause-by-clause study and went about it in a positive and constructive way to improve this bill. No fewer than 19 amendments were introduced by my colleague. The fact that 16 of those 19 amendments were accepted is proof that the work was taken seriously and completed diligently. A 17th amendment was almost adopted, but unfortunately, a partner walked away at the last second.
I congratulate and thank the colleagues from the other parties, but a special honour goes to the colleague who proposed these amendments for the good of the bill and to properly advance this bill. We owe a debt of gratitude to my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. When I say “we”, I mean us parliamentarians, but especially us Canadians and the first nations, for the ability to work well with this national council for reconciliation.
Therefore, we will be voting in favour of this bill, which had 16 amendments that were proposed by my colleague from the official opposition and that improved the bill.
I think it is quite important to remind everybody we are not talking about a brand new start. It is part of our Canadian history. When we talk about first nations, we all have to recognize, as proud Canadians, as we should be, if there was something wrong in our past. There is the fact that the relations we had with our first nations were not very good, for century after century.
We could talk about the fact that, all around the world, the big countries have to address that kind of issue. Yes, that is for sure. However, it is not because the rest of the world was not good that we have to be okay with the fact that we were not good. This is why I think this is a step forward and a way to address it correctly.
I would like to remind members that I was not in the House to witness that great moment on June 11, 2008. Many people currently sitting in this House were there. For the first time in history, the Government of Canada, through its prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen J. Harper, formally apologized to first nations for the horrors committed at residential schools.
For the first time, the only time in our parliamentary Canadian history, we saw a first nation leader here in the House, listening to the formal apology and the national excuses from a Prime Minister and answering to that.
The only time a first nation leader has spoken directly to Canadians in the House of Commons was in 2008 under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Whatever we can say, whatever happens, whatever party we are, we have to be proud of this great Canadian moment in our history.
What happened after the apology? The Prime Minister made sure that it was not the last step. Rather, it was the beginning of what was to be reconciliation. He created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For five years, this commission travelled from coast to coast, and it was both studious and thorough in its work. I remember because I was a provincial MNA, and I attended one of the hearings in Wendake.
Thousands of citizens and thousands of first nations people testified to the horrors of a shameful stain on Canadian history, our history: residential schools that were designed to kill the Indian in the heart of each child. It is terrifying to think about, to think that it happened for generations, for over 100 years. Thousands of people still bear the scars today.
Yes, what happened is serious and it must be recognized. Yes, there was an apology. Yes, the commission was created. It tabled reports and over 90 recommendations in 2015. Some will remember the reactions we had at that time: Yes, this needed to be acknowledged.
I would like to remind members that six specific recommendations, calls to action 71 through 76, directly addressed the issue of burial sites and cemeteries. When graves were discovered two years ago, everyone suddenly grasped the horror of what had happened, but where were those people when the public apology was delivered in 2008? Where were they during the six years when the commission was investigating what happened to first nations? Where were they in 2015 when the report was tabled with specific actions for addressing this problem?
That is what happens when a relationship that is unequal, disrespectful and unproductive persists for centuries. Today we are passing a law that will create a national council for reconciliation. It will never be enough, but it is a step in the right direction that we applaud.
1365 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is quite important to remind everybody that we are on the same planet. We are in the same country, and we are the same people. This is why we have to address this issue collectively instead of in a more partisan way.
The answer to this question should come from the first nations themselves. Obviously, as a member of Parliament, I have my personal point of view on that, but what is it based on? It is based on the fact that I have lived near a first nation all my life. I am 58 and a half years old and I have spent all of my life near the Wendake first nation, so I know them well. As I said earlier, they are a good example and good inspiration for everybody.
As for the issue raised by my hon. colleague, I do not see it on a daily basis in my riding with my communities, but I know and recognize that this is the fact for so many other places in this country. I hope that the national council will give a voice to the first nations, to give the government and parliamentarians the ways to address things correctly based on their perspective instead of others' perspectives.
211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member raised a great example. He is the member for Winnipeg North, and I know there is a big issue to be addressed in Winnipeg with first nations, which is not the same issue that we have to address in the Quebec City area. Based on my personal experience and knowing them pretty well, it is not the same case. This is why we should work hand in hand with first nations, our provincial partners and our municipal partners.
The question raised by my colleague from the Bloc a few minutes ago was exactly that. If we talk about the health care system for first nations, yes, first nations are under federal jurisdiction. We also know and recognize that health issues are not only a federal responsibility for first nations, but also a provincial one, and we have to work hand in hand with our municipal partners.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
